Removal Representation

“I inherited separation from President Obama," and "I was the one that ended it." – Donald J. Trump on June 23, 2019.

While this claim has been continuously proven wrong by fact checkers, Trump continues to argue that the notorious family separation policy was instituted by Obama. In truth, Trump’s former Attorney General Jeff Sessions began the family separation policy in an implementation of “zero tolerance” for illegal border crossings. As a result of this policy, thousands of children have been taken from their families and now face conditions of unsafe and unsanitary conditions that have proved fatal.

Twenty-four immigrants have died in ICE custody in the Trump administration’s two-and-a-half-year term. An additional four immigrants have died shortly after being released from ICE custody. That is the average size of an elementary class in the United States. However, this is far from unusual. The peak number of immigrant deaths in ICE detention centers in one year was thirty-two in 2004, the first full year that these records were kept.

Back in 2015, twenty-eight members of Congress wrote to ICE about their concern for the mounting death tolls in detention centers run by their agents. Their largest concern continues to be an issue today: failure to provide adequate medical care to detainees. While lack of medical care in ICE centers has often been failing, the concern issue has become more prominent as a result of the Obama-era implementation of family detention centers, privatization of these centers, and monetary incentives for the number of beds the facility could fill.

While Obama’s administration certainly harmed the health of migrants, the expansion of these programs by Trump’s administration have made the centers far more lethal than they proved to be under the previous administration.

Since the Department of Homeland Security was created after the September 11, 2001 attacks, there have been 188 recorded deaths in ICE detention. Last year, Department of Homeland Security officers observed “horrific” conditions during a surprise inspection of an immigrant detention facility outside of Los Angeles, California. In fifteen out of twenty of the rooms had nooses made of bed linens hanging from the air vents.

More recently, the Trump administration has further come under fire as lawyers have begun interviewing some of the children. They have found that children are often taking care of children, they lack basic necessities such as toothbrushes and soap. The administration has argued that these items are not required by law that mandates the government keep the children in “safe and sanitary” conditions. With little remorse being shown by the administration up to this point, it is likely that the conditions will only get worse. The only hope in site is governors and legislatures fighting back. Thus far, this has only really happened in Illinois where Governor J.B. Pritzker has signed a bill prohibiting local law enforcement officers from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and preventing private detention centers from opening in the state. Hopefully, more states will follow this strategy.

In 2016 then-Candidate Donald Trump campaigned upon a promise to crack down on asylum seekers. Throughout this year, he has tried to fulfill that promise as aggressively as possible.

In January 2019, the Trump administration implemented a “Stay in Mexico” policy wherein migrants coming from Mexico, legally or illegally, who are applying for asylum are sent back to Mexico while they await their hearing date in the United States even if they are not from Mexico. If the migrant has multiple hearings, he is sent back to Mexico in between each one. The administration argues that this is legal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C) which states that a migrant who is arriving on land from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, may be returned to that territory pending a proceeding.

The policy is likely a ploy to try to prevent these migrants from gaining asylum in the United States. According to 8 U.S. Code § 1158(2)(A)(vi), a migrant must be denied asylum if he was “firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States”. The administration is trying to force migrants to become resettled in Mexico before they can get a hearing to prevent them from obtaining asylum in the United States. A migrant is considered to be resettled if “prior to arrival in the United States, he or she entered into another country with, or while in that country received, an offer of permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement”. 8 CFR § 1208.15.

This is also problematic because the migrants can be arrested and deported from Mexico since they are usually not Mexican citizens. Additionally, because the migrants are not Mexican citizens, they are unable to find employment during the time they are stranded in Mexico unless they receive authorization, which would likely destroy their chance of obtaining asylum in the United States.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), people can also be denied the ability to claim asylum in the U.S. if they can be removed to a ‘safe third country’ with which the U.S. has a formal agreement. However, no such agreement exists between the U.S. and Mexico, and evidence suggests the conditions in Mexico are far from secure.

This could also be against international law because under the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, ratified by the United States, “[n]o Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 33, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.

However, the Ninth Circuit has upheld this program at least to this date. As it stands now, it would appear that the only way to stop this policy is through legislation passed by Congress. Fortunately, there are two ways a migrant could get around this resettlement issue under 8 CFR § 1208.15(a). First, the migrant will not be considered resettled if he can prove that he has no significant ties to that country. The migrant could prove this by showing that “This would require showing that: (1) the entry into that country (Mexico) was a necessary consequence of his or her flight from persecution, (2) that he or she remained in that country only as long as was necessary to arrange onward travel, (3) and that he or she did not establish significant ties in that country.

Second, the migrant will not be considered resettled if he can prove that “the conditions of his/her residence in that country were so substantially and consciously restricted by the authority of the country of refuge that he or she was not in fact resettled”. In making his or her determination, the asylum officer or immigration judge shall consider the conditions under which other residents of the country live; the type of housing, whether permanent or temporary, made available to the refugee; the types and extent of employment available to the refugee; and the extent to which the refugee received permission to hold property and to enjoy other rights and privileges, such as travel documentation that includes a right of entry or reentry, education, public relief, or naturalization, ordinarily available to others resident in the country.

While the “Stay in Mexico” policy may be arbitrary, exceptions in the law could allow migrants to still obtain asylum in the United States. Since the courts have allowed this policy to continue and there is no telling how the administration may continue to undermine the immigration process, it seems that the future of asylum law lies at the discretion of Congress.

This is a video of me speaking at a naturalization ceremony in federal court last Friday. It was a great honor for me to be able to do this so Andrea recorded it. Listen to message to those hoping to become American Citizens.

The Missiouri Immigrant and Refugee Advocate, via ActionNetwork.org, have provided an excellent statement on the current state of DACA:

Yesterday, September 5, 2017, Jeff Sessions made an announcement on behalf of the White House, that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been rescinded. There have been many questions circulating in regards to what exactly this means. Lets take time to explain some of what was left vague during Session’s announcement.

· Current DACA recipients are able to keep their benefits, which include employment authorization documents until they expire.

· Individuals with pending applications that were filed prior to September 5, 2017 will have those cases reviewed on an individual, case-by-case basis and not automatically rejected.

· Individuals in the process of renewal will have their case reviewed on an individual, case-by-case basis. Individuals whose benefits are due to expire between September 5, 2017 and March 5, 2018 can apply for renewal by October 5, 2017. Such cases will be reviewed on an individual case-by-case basis. Any applications filed after October 5, 2017 will be rejected.

· If Congress does not pass a law the benefits of DACA recipients will expire according to their expiration date, they cannot be renewed after October 5, 2017.

· There have been several bills that have been introduced, including the Bridge Act. The Bridge Act is not a permanent solution, however those who qualified for DACA would have provisional protection under the Bridge Act. Keep in mind that the Bridge Act expires after three years and cannot be renewed.

Yesterday’s announcement although expected has been a painful one for our DACAmented and undocumented community. We must continue to raise our voices in support of DACA. What can you do next?

Call your local representatives and voice your support of the DACA program, and the need for congress to push through a law to protect DACA recipients. Ask your representatives to publically support DACA.

According to a Reuters report, the Trump administration has rolled out a new questionnaire (see below) for U.S. visa applicants that asks for all prior passport numbers; five years' worth of social media handles, email addresses and phone numbers; and 15 years of biographical information including addresses, employment and travel history. Officials will request the additional information when they determine "that such information is required to confirm identity or conduct more rigorous national security vetting," a DOS official said.

The Department proposes requesting the following information, if not already included in an application, from a subset of visa applicants worldwide, in order to more rigorously evaluate applicants for terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities:

Travel history during the last fifteen years, including source of funding for travel;

Address history during the last fifteen years;

Employment history during the last fifteen years;

All passport numbers and country of issuance held by the applicant;

Names and dates of birth for all siblings;

Name and dates of birth for all children;

Names and dates of birth for all current and former spouses, or civil or domestic partners;

Social media platforms and identifiers, also known as handles, used during the last five years; and

Phone numbers and email addresses used during the last five years.

Most of this information is already collected on visa applications but for a shorter time period, e.g. five years rather than fifteen years. Requests for names and dates of birth of siblings and, for some applicants, children are new. The request for social media identifiers and associated platforms is new for the Department of State, although it is already collected on a voluntary basis by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for certain individuals. Regarding travel history, applicants may be requested to provide details of their international or domestic (within their country of nationality) travel, if it appears to the consular officer that the applicant has been in an area while the area was under the operational control of a terrorist organization as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi). Applicants may be asked to recount or explain the details of their travel, and when possible, provide supporting documentation.

Surprised as so many others were by the outcome of last week's US presidential election, those interested in immigration benefits have suddenly found they have no choice but to act now to seek benefits they may be eligible for. Newly elected presidents from both parties have a history of acting on immigration early into their first terms. For example, George W. Bush pushed for and signed the LIFE Act which allowed many undocumented immigrants an opportunity to gain legal status if they had been in the US for a certain period of time and had already filed for limited immigration benefits in the past that prior to the Act would not have offered a path to legalization. President Obama tried and failed to get comprehensive immigration reform passed. The Senate approved a comprehensive bill that the House of Representatives refused to even consider. Thus, many immigrants and their families, including undocumented individuals, were waiting to take any action--waiting to see if Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would be elected, and to see if the makeup of Congress would change the dynamics of immigration reform. Everyone hoping for reasoned solutions to what all agree is an untenable situation.

The election results certainly did change the dynamics of immigration reform. At this point, no one taking power in January is talking about reforming the law to advance legal immigration. Virtually all of President-elect Trump's rhetoric has been focused on enforcement or restrictions on immigration (such as the "extreme vetting" of those from countries that have connections to terrorism). In this light, many affected by immigration policy are afraid. This atmosphere of fear is driving many to take action. Family members of US citizens are coming forward in droves to pursue existing paths toward regularizing their status, while others, like long-time permanent residents, are deciding now is the time to apply for citizenship.

Immigration is a funny thing. Regardless of the outcome of the election, immigration business was likely to boom. The only question was would it boom in the direction of increased legal immigration or would it boom in the direction of a crackdown. With the latter virtually inevitable, people are no longer waiting for a better option--they know nothing better will be coming along for a long time. Even though many do have legal paths toward regularizing their status; millions of others do not. They are the most vulnerable at this point.

Many current benefits (mostly those based on Executive Orders signed by President Obama) are likely to go away soon after President Trump takes office. One such example is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA program. When the DREAMERS Act failed to pass, this was the solution offered by President Obama for the children of those whose parents brought them to the US when they were very young and had no choice in the matter. The program has allowed many such children to get work permits, driver's licenses, open bank accounts, and attend school. This may all change if President Trump carries through with his promise to rescind all of the President Obama's executive orders.

If you or someone you know is in need of regularizing their status or just getting solid advice at this turbulent time, contact an experienced immigration lawyer now.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently announced that it is adjusting the fees required for most immigration applications and petitions. The new fees will be effective Dec. 23.

USCIS is almost entirely funded by the fees paid by applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits. The law requires USCIS to conduct fee reviews every two years to determine the funding levels necessary to administer the nation’s immigration laws, process benefit requests and provide the infrastructure needed to support those activities.

Fees will increase for the first time in six years, by a weighted average of 21 percent for most applications and petitions. The USCIS claims this increase is necessary to recover the full cost of services provided by USCIS.

Applications and petitions postmarked or filed on or after Dec. 23 must include the new fees or USCIS will not be able to accept them.

"This is our first fee increase since November 2010, and we sincerely appreciate the valuable public input we received as we prepared this final rule," said USCIS Director León Rodríguez. "We are mindful of the effect fee increases have on many of the customers we serve. That’s why we decided against raising fees as recommended after the fiscal year 2012 and 2014 fee reviews. However, as an agency dependent upon users’ fees to operate, these changes are now necessary to ensure we can continue to serve our customers effectively. We will also offer a reduced filing fee for certain naturalization applicants with limited means."

•A modest fee increase of $45, or 8 percent, from $595 to $640 for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.

◦USCIS will offer a reduced filing fee of $320 for naturalization applicants with family incomes greater than 150 percent and not more than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. For 2016, this means, for example, that a household of four with an income between $36,000 and $48,600 per year could pay the reduced fee. Those eligible may apply for this option using the new Form I-942, Request for Reduced Fee.

•The fee for Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, and N-600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322, will increase from $550 or 600 to $1,170.

Missouri is home to thousands of “Dreamers”—immigrants brought to the US as children. Since 2012, many have been granted work authorization and permission to remain in the US under the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) initiative.

On July 1, 2015, several public college systems in Missouri began issuing letters to students with DACA requiring them to pay out-of-state or international tuition rates and disqualifying them from institutional scholarships. They are saying the budget bill requires them to do this, but their position violates the Missouri constitution. Missouri lawmakers were, to be clear, motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment, intending to put a university education out-of-reach of most of these newly documented students--most who have no known memory of living anywhere other than here in the US. Tuition is increasing by three fold this fall. We need to act now and respond to this senseless discrimination.

Here is a link to a fact sheet describing the details of the state's action and how some colleges and universities have responded: http://bit.ly/1HqPLb2

Several local immigrant rights organizations are leading the way. If you want to get involved, or if you are a student affected by these actions needing help transferring schools, contact one of the following organizations:

A federal district court in Texas granted a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in a lawsuit brought by 26 states. (State of Texas, et al v. U.S.A, 2/16/15). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was set to begin receiving applications for the two new programs implemented by executive order last year, has said it disagrees with the judge's decision and has asked the Department of Justice to appeal the decision. In the mean time, the Secretary of DHS issued the following statement:

The Department of Homeland Security will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA tomorrow, February 18, as originally planned. Until further notice, we will also suspend the plan to accept requests for DAPA.

The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts and even other courts have said that our actions are well within our legal authority. Our actions will also benefit the economy and promote law enforcement. We fully expect to ultimately prevail in the courts, and we will be prepared to implement DAPA and expanded DACA once we do.

It is important to emphasize what the District Court’s order does not affect.

The Court’s order does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA pursuant to the guidelines established in 2012.

Nor does the Court’s order affect this Department’s ability to set and implement enforcement priorities. The priorities established in my November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants” remain in full force and effect. Pursuant to those enforcement priorities, we continue to prioritize public safety, national security, and border security. I am pleased that an increasing percentage of removals each year are of those convicted of crimes. I am also pleased that, due in large part to our investments in and prioritization of border security, apprehensions at the southern border – a large indicator of total attempts to cross the border illegally -- are now at the lowest levels in years.